Gotcha. I don't think he's suggesting that drivers of powerful cars are totally immune from the consequences of their mistakes though, just that small mistakes are made negligible. There's also the possibility that with a great deal of power relative to traction, the "ideal" line through a corner is much less clear-cut. You can carry the most corner speed, but if that comes at the expense of getting straightened up and gassing away, then the guy who's made a "mistake" with his line may still be faster.

That's exactly what i'm saying and i'm glad someone from another motorsport fraternity can relate to what we (kart drivers) know well. Aside i'm also Kart race timer so i have both the inside and outside view of the problem.

And to add to both kart and motorcycle circle, back in 2000's when F1 cars were very powerful, a new cornering technic was developped called "the extra turn" in which you lined up the car, losing apex speed to better re'accelerate.

So well, physics+experience from several motorsport categories i think make good arguments to my case, while you saudoso didn't bring anything else than "you're wrong".

There's also the possibility that with a great deal of power relative to traction, the "ideal" line through a corner is much less clear-cut. You can carry the most corner speed, but if that comes at the expense of getting straightened up and gassing away, then the guy who's made a "mistake" with his line may still be faster.

Shouldn't this be a good thing, though? If there's multiple faster lines it'll be easier to overtake, than if there's one optimal one and the car ahead can just stick to it and block the pass.

I agree more powerful cars will make corner technique mistakes more forgivable, it will lose you less time, but my argument is that this is a good thing for racing, not the contrary.

Gotcha. I don't think he's suggesting that drivers of powerful cars are totally immune from the consequences of their mistakes though, just that small mistakes are made negligible. There's also the possibility that with a great deal of power relative to traction, the "ideal" line through a corner is much less clear-cut. You can carry the most corner speed, but if that comes at the expense of getting straightened up and gassing away, then the guy who's made a "mistake" with his line may still be faster.

I would argue that if the guy who made a 'mistake' is faster then it really is not a mistake at all and is the more correct line to take. The other thing to remember with overpowered cars is the tyres. Just because getting the car pointing in the right direction and then powering down the straight might be the fastest way around the circuit on one lap it does not follow that it is the fastest way over a race distance because it might cause too much wear on the rear tyres requiring an extra pit stop.

I could imagine there being situations where drivers will adapt the driving style to the situation so if they are trying to create a gap they will use the faster but harder wearing style to create the gap and then use the smoother style to make the tyres last while trying to maintain the gap. If the cars are close enough in optimal performance then it would mean the drivers would become a larger differentiator in overall performance and that can only be a good thing.

You could also mandate the maximum travel of the throttle peddle so that they require even more fine control of their right foot which again would make driver skill and ability a more important factor than currently.

I would argue that if the guy who made a 'mistake' is faster then it really is not a mistake at all and is the more correct line to take. The other thing to remember with overpowered cars is the tyres. Just because getting the car pointing in the right direction and then powering down the straight might be the fastest way around the circuit on one lap it does not follow that it is the fastest way over a race distance because it might cause too much wear on the rear tyres requiring an extra pit stop.

I could imagine there being situations where drivers will adapt the driving style to the situation so if they are trying to create a gap they will use the faster but harder wearing style to create the gap and then use the smoother style to make the tyres last while trying to maintain the gap. If the cars are close enough in optimal performance then it would mean the drivers would become a larger differentiator in overall performance and that can only be a good thing.

You could also mandate the maximum travel of the throttle peddle so that they require even more fine control of their right foot which again would make driver skill and ability a more important factor than currently.

It is not a question of wearing tyres. It is just a question of traction circle:

Let's start from the basic racing line theory, the minimum curvature racing line. The basic sequence is, from turn in to apex you increase the curvature (you turn the steering wheel more and more) then from apex to exit you unwind the steering wheel thus decreasing the curvature.

Curvature is inversely proportional to forward speed and this can be seen from energetic states at different levels but you can see it at the tires level: You tires have a maximum potential of grip (braking/accelerating/cornering) which can be represented as a traction circle; When you brake you decrease the grip available for accelerating forward and cornering, when you corner you decrease the grip for braking and accelerating and when you accelerate you decrease the grip available for braking and cornering.

Hence when you exit the corner as the curvature starts to decrease you have to trade forward acceleration for cornering (as you progress through the exit you can use more and more accelerating because you use lesser and lesser cornering grip).

So coming from that traction circle theory you could ask yourself if doing some tweaks to the minimum curvature racing line could bring any positive results I.E: if any other trade off between forward acceleration and cornering may offer as good or even better lap time.

To answer that you have to look at the power/grip ratio. A car that has massive power but also high grip (like F1 cars) will thus accelerate very fast but also corner fast so the balance is toward the minimum curvature racing line; But if you have a car with lot's of power but low grip it may be in a position where accelerating out of the corner is more important than cornering or may bring similar results. This is the case with shifter karts; They have similar grip than non shifter karts but because of the gearbox they have all the power available at almost anytime, and that power is much more than what is needed when using the minimum curvature racing line. So two things are commonly seen in shifter karts vs non shifter karts: 1/Drivers that are above the minimum weight requirement can still be as fast than lighter drivers (of course it all depends on how much..)2/When you do a mistake like sliding a bit, you can make up for that by rapidily aligning the kart and putting more power

You have the same analog relationship between racing karts and rental karts. Sliding with racing karts may not be too detrimental on some occasions, doing so with rental karts instantly kills your lap time.

As for the goodness of this for racing i agree...but having car with too much grip also allows for different racing lines and this is not a good thing i think we'll agree.. Imho when you put more power you need a corresponding increase in grip.And a very good example of that were the 2004 F1...monsters of 900 bhp with tons of grip and rampaged through the turns and i think we'll agree they were quite challenging to drive!

1) more front grip looks better, with the cars pointy - the quick changes in direction should always be a part of F1.2) emphasis on corner speed - through aero - de-emphasizes the importance to lap time of accelleration. F1 cars *could* look more exciting under acceleration - with more grip and hp. That does not affect safety at all.3) Darren Heath is my favorite photographer, but I couldn't disagree more with him. He's jaded, maybe even annoyed by the sound of "loud cars" because of his job. It's all important. And he doesn't understand physics: you can't make 700 hp of energy sound like 1,000 by putting a different pipe on the engine, particularly given the efficiencies F1 engines run at. You also can't reproduce the musically aggressive sound of torque going through a wider power band fast, relative to a bunch of shifting slow through a smaller power band.

.. and again: a V6 turbo has nothing to do with being "green". It doesn't have anything to do with a 4 cylinder econobox car engine, or an electrical hybrid engine. It is no more F1's responsibility to be "green" than American football has the responsibility to be "non-violent". It makes zero sense: it's about racing LOUD POWERFUL CARS.

...AND DOUBLE AGAIN (AGAIN): no, I have not "gotten used" to the little rear wings, or the narrow car profile, and certainly not stepped noses!!!!!!!

My mother is in the hospital for pulmonary embolism/leg clots. I presumed I could stay overnight with her at the hospital.

WRONG!

I am told: "It is now hospital policy that a male cannot stay after visiting hours in a room with two female patients".

"This is for your own protection".

ME: "so, what is different after 9 p.m.?"

NURSE: "there are not as many people going in and out, and the halls are darkened".

ME: "............."

NURSE: "you can stay in the waiting room, and then come in and check on her periodically".

ME: "doesn't that obviate my own feeling that I should be in her presence, while at the same time what is different if I come in here after staying in the waiting room, versus staying here?"

NURSE: "I can have you discuss it an orderly, or I can call security and you can discuss it with them".

ME: "......."

ON TOPIC RELEVANCE:

Something has happened to "reality", this particular splinter of the multiverse, where some sort of generalized idea congeals into herd-mentality, becomes inevitably "An Issue That WILL Be Addressed", and is then addressed with non-sensical bureaucratic non-sense. "Race cars have to be green". "Football has to be non-violent". "Boy Scouts have to allow girls". "Your wife has to be felt up by a stranger to get on the plane". "AIR costs $1.00 to pump up your tires". "They're taking away my guns, that I have the right to own so that they won't have the ability to take away my guns". "it is against the law to skateboard in the street/it is against the law to ride your bike on the sidewalk"... On and on...

The look, sound and power of a RACE CAR doesn't matter. They have to have small engines and good fuel economy, because that's "green". WTF???

I used to love to draw cars when I was about 5-6. I have drawings of Can-am and F1 cars, I did it because THEY LOOKED COOL. Lo and behold, 40 years later, I am still enamored with COOL LOOKING CARS. For all of my life I would never, ever, have thought that my perspective - "loud cars that look aggressive and neat, going fast, is entertaining" was some sort of foreign concept that had to be EXPLAINED. It's like pizza, isn't it? Or has that changed, to? "You can have pizza, but it must not have any cheese on it because it's fattening". Or maybe that has already occurred, I don't know, I am out of my frakking mind.

The more I think about this, the more I tend to agree with the guys who say green doesn't / shouldn't matter.

VW have sold 316 Bugatti Veyrons to date, per wikipedia. These have 8-litre Q16 engines spitting out 1,001 BHP. If people are allowed to go out and buy one of these to drive on the ROAD, why on earth should F1 cars not have dirty great V12s with turbo charges and millions of horsepower to RACE on the TRACK? Apparently if you're giving it the beans, the Veyron does 3mpg (US). 3. That's worse than an F1 car!

And I'm sure those Veyron engines cost less than the current crop of V8s and certainly the new V6s.

I have totally reversed my position on this in the last year... for my mind, stick to the 201 aero rules as less downforce equals more overtaking. Then stuff bigger engines in and make back the difference in speed with raw power.

The more I think about this, the more I tend to agree with the guys who say green doesn't / shouldn't matter.

VW have sold 316 Bugatti Veyrons to date, per wikipedia. These have 8-litre Q16 engines spitting out 1,001 BHP. If people are allowed to go out and buy one of these to drive on the ROAD, why on earth should F1 cars not have dirty great V12s with turbo charges and millions of horsepower to RACE on the TRACK? Apparently if you're giving it the beans, the Veyron does 3mpg (US). 3. That's worse than an F1 car!

And I'm sure those Veyron engines cost less than the current crop of V8s and certainly the new V6s.

I have totally reversed my position on this in the last year... for my mind, stick to the 201 aero rules as less downforce equals more overtaking. Then stuff bigger engines in and make back the difference in speed with raw power.

The answer is simple because engine suppliers would not see any connection to their road cars, which they could use for advertising their road cars.

The more I think about this, the more I tend to agree with the guys who say green doesn't / shouldn't matter.

VW have sold 316 Bugatti Veyrons to date, per wikipedia. These have 8-litre Q16 engines spitting out 1,001 BHP. If people are allowed to go out and buy one of these to drive on the ROAD, why on earth should F1 cars not have dirty great V12s with turbo charges and millions of horsepower to RACE on the TRACK? Apparently if you're giving it the beans, the Veyron does 3mpg (US). 3. That's worse than an F1 car!

A Bugatti Veyron would easily be beaten around a track by an F1 car, no matter how much more power it has. Give the current cars even more horsepower and they'll be approaching dangerous speeds. We don't want drivers running the risk of blacking out.

I have totally reversed my position on this in the last year... for my mind, stick to the 201 aero rules as less downforce equals more overtaking. Then stuff bigger engines in and make back the difference in speed with raw power.

You wouldn't make up the loss in speed by cutting the downforce just with engine power.

The answer is simple because engine suppliers would not see any connection to their road cars, which they could use for advertising their road cars.

Well how much connection is there even now? Renault has powered Red Bull to 3 straight WDC/WCC titles, yet I wouldn't buy one of their road cars based on that.

I think it's a general myth at this point that F1 even has any relevance left to road cars that the average person will be driving. Everything in F1 is stagnant these days, and stagnance isn't going to create relevance. F1 should go back to open engine specs IMO. It would make things far more interesting if V6 turbos, V8's, V10's, and V12's were all in play.

The answer is simple because engine suppliers would not see any connection to their road cars, which they could use for advertising their road cars.

That's not the answer. If it were then the companies would run series that used engines closer to their road cars. The Renault World Series premier race is the uses a 3.5 litre engine, hardly relevant to the vast majority of their range.

Because that disadvantages the bigger drivers and isn't where the problem lies.

The differences in driver weights from a percentage of total weight are small, but lowering the weight would increase that percentage a little. However, if we're talking about more power and better handling then lowering the weight accomplishes both of these.

Whilst the numbers may not look great on paper, there's no way the fans will see the difference watching races. 5 seconds isn't enough for that.

Has anyone in here driven a car with 700BHP and weighed just 640kg? My road car, which I think is pretty fast is 345BHP and 1410kg. An F1 car of proposed 2014-specs has 4x the power:weight ratio of that. Quite insane. It's still over 1000BHP/tonne on low fuel.

I attended races in 2004 when the cars were at their peak and to be honest, I didn't see any difference in 2006 at my next GP, or 2009 when the aero dropped again. You wont at 2014 either. They'll just not sound as good.

The differences in driver weights from a percentage of total weight are small, but lowering the weight would increase that percentage a little. However, if we're talking about more power and better handling then lowering the weight accomplishes both of these.

And? Why not challenge the engineers with something other than aero, take weight out? As long as the safety regs are adhered to.

Its not possible to reduce weight. The engines ar eheavier, the KERS is heavier atm, the tyres are heavier, and there is is no such thing as 'relatively small weight difference. They need to have movable ballast in the cars,

The differences in driver weights from a percentage of total weight are small, but lowering the weight would increase that percentage a little. However, if we're talking about more power and better handling then lowering the weight accomplishes both of these.

If the weight was lowered then the larger drivers would be at a disadvantage, just as they have been in the past. It is not a valid answer.

And? Why not challenge the engineers with something other than aero, take weight out? As long as the safety regs are adhered to.

The chassis already weighs A LOT less than the minimum amount. There's a considerable amount of ballast in the cars (probably not far off 100kg in total) and that's advantageous as they can move it around. If they couldn't, they'd have a car that would be really heavy at the rear-end and not enough at the front with no tyre-width dispensation to compensate. Also, the taller heavier drivers (such as Kubica and Coulthard) were also disadvantaged and the FIA didn't want them starving themselves to be competitive.

Whilst the numbers may not look great on paper, there's no way the fans will see the difference watching races. 5 seconds isn't enough for that.

Has anyone in here driven a car with 700BHP and weighed just 640kg? My road car, which I think is pretty fast is 345BHP and 1410kg. An F1 car of proposed 2014-specs has 4x the power:weight ratio of that. Quite insane. It's still over 1000BHP/tonne on low fuel.

I attended races in 2004 when the cars were at their peak and to be honest, I didn't see any difference in 2006 at my next GP, or 2009 when the aero dropped again. You wont at 2014 either. They'll just not sound as good.

I can see differences. Not so much when they are on the straights, but certainly in the corners. Some that used to be a challenge are now simply taken at full throttle

The reason the current cars are slower than 2004 is mainly BHP. Downforce isn't a million miles away and the slicks help.

The FIA wont allow them to be any faster in a straight line due to safety concerns (such is the reason why the last decade of aero changes, they have almost unilaterally removed downforce but retained the same drag level - reduced efficiency). Therefore, removing drag to allow to compensate for cornering speed with extra speed on the straights isn't going to happen. The fastest F1 cars will ever go has passed - 370KM/H at Monza in 2005.

The reason the current cars are slower than 2004 is mainly BHP. Downforce isn't a million miles away and the slicks help.

The FIA wont allow them to be any faster in a straight line due to safety concerns (such is the reason why the last decade of aero changes, they have almost unilaterally removed downforce but retained the same drag level - reduced efficiency). Therefore, removing drag to allow to compensate for cornering speed with extra speed on the straights isn't going to happen. The fastest F1 cars will ever go has passed - 370KM/H at Monza in 2005.

Straightline speeds were not the issue it's cornering speeds they wanted to control.

Well how much connection is there even now? Renault has powered Red Bull to 3 straight WDC/WCC titles, yet I wouldn't buy one of their road cars based on that.

I think it's a general myth at this point that F1 even has any relevance left to road cars that the average person will be driving. Everything in F1 is stagnant these days, and stagnance isn't going to create relevance. F1 should go back to open engine specs IMO. It would make things far more interesting if V6 turbos, V8's, V10's, and V12's were all in play.

That is the point. Winning in F1 does not sell any cars. You can even withdraw from F1 and it has no negative effect - see BMW, Honda or Toyota. The problem is why should the big car companies still be in F1. The only little hope is to have a technology that can be used for marketing purposes. F1 will be in deep trouble when the car companies notice that it has no relevance for the car sales. This fact would not change if you allow different engine types, all this would do is to increase the cost of being in F1. With constantly rising fuel prices building a V12 fuel guzzler to win in F1, will be hardly helping to sell one road car. (Ferrari aside) For road cars the focus of development and the focus of the customers has changed from having the most powerful engine to having the most fuel efficient engine. F1 needs to reflect this, if it has any hope to get car companies to burn money participating in F1. I must honestly say I can see absolutely no reason for any car company (Ferrari aside) to be in F1.

That is the point. Winning in F1 does not sell any cars. You can even withdraw from F1 and it has no negative effect - see BMW, Honda or Toyota. The problem is why should the big car companies still be in F1. The only little hope is to have a technology that can be used for marketing purposes. F1 will be in deep trouble when the car companies notice that it has no relevance for the car sales. This fact would not chance if you allow different engine types, all this would do is to increase the cost of being in F1. With constantly rising fuel prices building a V12 fuel guzzler to win in F1, will be hardly helping to sell one road car. (Ferrari aside) For road cars the focus of development and the focus of the customers has changed from having the most powerful engine to having the most fuel efficient engine. F1 needs to reflect this, if it has any hope to get car companies to burn money participating in F1. I must honestly say I can see absolutely no reason for any car company (Ferrari aside) to be in F1.

Just because the engines are larger than those in the normal customer car doesn't mean they are not fuel efficient.

That is the point. Winning in F1 does not sell any cars. You can even withdraw from F1 and it has no negative effect - see BMW, Honda or Toyota. The problem is why should the big car companies still be in F1. The only little hope is to have a technology that can be used for marketing purposes. F1 will be in deep trouble when the car companies notice that it has no relevance for the car sales. This fact would not chance if you allow different engine types, all this would do is to increase the cost of being in F1. With constantly rising fuel prices building a V12 fuel guzzler to win in F1, will be hardly helping to sell one road car. (Ferrari aside) For road cars the focus of development and the focus of the customers has changed from having the most powerful engine to having the most fuel efficient engine. F1 needs to reflect this, if it has any hope to get car companies to burn money participating in F1. I must honestly say I can see absolutely no reason for any car company (Ferrari aside) to be in F1.

I agree completely. The only stock I ever put in the car manufacturers was as an engine supplier, and little else. Even though Honda fielded a F1 team, were you to ask me how I associate Honda with F1, it would be with the Marlboro McLaren cars of the late 80s-early 90s, rather than their '00's effort. If anything, I've always felt F1 should be trying to attract manufacturers to supply engines as opposed to trying to get them to field works teams as it never works out. But the only way I ever see manufacturers even being interested in that would be to have a wider allowance for types of engines run, and for plenty of development to be allowed. Since fuel efficiency is the name of the game currently in the automotive industry, why not just set the fuel consumption levels and then let the engine suppliers build whatever they'd like for the engines. Limiting development to just aero is a foolish, and short-sighted approach for F1 to be taking. Let the manufacturers fight it out to try and develop the best engines. F1 could serve as an interesting test bed on that front, and if anything, open the grid back up to let more private teams powered by a manufacturer engine back in.

The funny thing about fuel efficiency is that the numbers will always be very high compared to normal road car engines used for normal, day to day driving. Also, it's funny that a normal road car on full throttle all the time can also burn a lot of fuel (when power is taken into account it will surely be a lot less effective in such circumstances).

The more I think about this, the more I tend to agree with the guys who say green doesn't / shouldn't matter.

VW have sold 316 Bugatti Veyrons to date, per wikipedia. These have 8-litre Q16 engines spitting out 1,001 BHP. If people are allowed to go out and buy one of these to drive on the ROAD, why on earth should F1 cars not have dirty great V12s with turbo charges and millions of horsepower to RACE on the TRACK? Apparently if you're giving it the beans, the Veyron does 3mpg (US). 3. That's worse than an F1 car!

It's NOT about logic. It's just PR. The problem is that this green racing BS is bad for the sport. It looks like some form of it is currently needed - they just have their priorities mixed up.

The answer is simple because engine suppliers would not see any connection to their road cars, which they could use for advertising their road cars.

A turbo V6 racing engine with a 16k revline isn't any more "connected" than a N/A V8 with 18k revline. They could advertise about reliability and power. And high tech that would be developed for and used in those engines (new, but not necessary weak or "green") and supposedly transferred to their road cars.

Because that disadvantages the bigger drivers and isn't where the problem lies.

It's a issue created only by KERS. And it will get worse.Also, don't forget we have (almost) fixed weight distribution now.Before KERS, a 600/605 kg limit wasn't a big issue for taller/heavier drivers like Kubica.

Has anyone in here driven a car with 700BHP and weighed just 640kg? My road car, which I think is pretty fast is 345BHP and 1410kg. An F1 car of proposed 2014-specs has 4x the power:weight ratio of that. Quite insane. It's still over 1000BHP/tonne on low fuel.

They proposed 600 bhp engines 160 bhp KERS. And your logic is flawed - the fact that people drive a lot less powerful cars doesn't mean that F1 cas shouldn't have proper power. And even if most people won't notice the difference, they will know the numbers.;)

I agree completely. The only stock I ever put in the car manufacturers was as an engine supplier, and little else. Even though Honda fielded a F1 team, were you to ask me how I associate Honda with F1, it would be with the Marlboro McLaren cars of the late 80s-early 90s, rather than their '00's effort. If anything, I've always felt F1 should be trying to attract manufacturers to supply engines as opposed to trying to get them to field works teams as it never works out. But the only way I ever see manufacturers even being interested in that would be to have a wider allowance for types of engines run, and for plenty of development to be allowed. Since fuel efficiency is the name of the game currently in the automotive industry, why not just set the fuel consumption levels and then let the engine suppliers build whatever they'd like for the engines. Limiting development to just aero is a foolish, and short-sighted approach for F1 to be taking. Let the manufacturers fight it out to try and develop the best engines. F1 could serve as an interesting test bed on that front, and if anything, open the grid back up to let more private teams powered by a manufacturer engine back in.

I personally love the idea to go by a rule that says, "F1 engine is not allowed to consume more than XXX kg fuel for the race" and would be the only rule. But this would have side effects as well, worst one will be rising costs, especially for the customer engine deals for the teams with no works engine. (or they will have to use cheap but also less good engines) Currently I can not see this happening. Mercedes and Ferrari have a works team, the last thing they need is for Honda or Volkswagen to come in and sent engines to McLaren (or Williams or Sauber) and beat them badly. And if I think about the possible resources a RBR-Volkswagen sounds scary.

F1 management would probably also not want this, as the last thing they need is a growing difference between the car, with one team clearly dominating over a long period.

Straightline speeds were not the issue it's cornering speeds they wanted to control.

It's a bit of both in the end. If you increase power, you can run higher AoA wings and maintain reasonable Vmax. This will increase cornering speeds. So, if they limited AoA or downforce generation they would have a hard time reducing the efficiency further, therefore the top speeds would increase. Reducing engine sizes combats both.

They proposed 600 bhp engines 160 bhp KERS. And your logic is flawed - the fact that people drive a lot less powerful cars doesn't mean that F1 cas shouldn't have proper power. And even if most people won't notice the difference, they will know the numbers.;)

How is it flawed? It shows that F1 cars are still bloody quick. The quickest car on earth is around the 600BHP/tonne mark (Veyron SS). F1 cars will be a good 40% more than that. With slicks and wings.

The chase for these incredible numbers is only an argument of those who haven't followed F1 very long. I started watching in '94 where power had one of its older peaks. They were around 800BHP then and in '95 with the drop to 3.0 they were around 700-720BHP. That is what a 2014 car would have with ERS activated (I don't understand why people don't include this...it's motive power, is it not?). For the majority of F1's existence, the power has been considerably less than the 750BHP + 80BHP KERS that we have currently. And pretty much the same can be said for 2014.

Also, looking at the BHP numbers on paper is of no use to anyone, apart from maybe accountants on their days off? It's what it looks like to watch.

I personally love the idea to go by a rule that says, "F1 engine is not allowed to consume more than XXX kg fuel for the race" and would be the only rule. But this would have side effects as well, worst one will be rising costs, especially for the customer engine deals for the teams with no works engine. (or they will have to use cheap but also less good engines) Currently I can not see this happening. Mercedes and Ferrari have a works team, the last thing they need is for Honda or Volkswagen to come in and sent engines to McLaren (or Williams or Sauber) and beat them badly. And if I think about the possible resources a RBR-Volkswagen sounds scary.

F1 management would probably also not want this, as the last thing they need is a growing difference between the car, with one team clearly dominating over a long period.

Renault has a works team, and since 2011 that has been Red Bull. The 2014 spec engines are being designed in Milton Keynes, and as far as I'm aware, though I could be wrong, the current engines are made there for RBR, Lotus, Williams and Caterham.

The chase for these incredible numbers is only an argument of those who haven't followed F1 very long. I started watching in '94 where power had one of its older peaks. They were around 800BHP then and in '95 with the drop to 3.0 they were around 700-720BHP. That is what a 2014 car would have with ERS activated (I don't understand why people don't include this...it's motive power, is it not?). For the majority of F1's existence, the power has been considerably less than the 750BHP + 80BHP KERS that we have currently. And pretty much the same can be said for 2014.

Have the FIA decided for sure yet whether the Energy Recovery Systems are going to be a push-to-pass button or part of the throttle response?

Renault has a works team, and since 2011 that has been Red Bull. The 2014 spec engines are being designed in Milton Keynes, and as far as I'm aware, though I could be wrong, the current engines are made there for RBR, Lotus, Williams and Caterham.

RedBull does not have engine design facilities. Do you have an idea of what kind of operation that requires? Obviously not.Renault engines are designed and produced in Viry, France.

How is it flawed? It shows that F1 cars are still bloody quick. The quickest car on earth is around the 600BHP/tonne mark (Veyron SS). F1 cars will be a good 40% more than that. With slicks and wings.

Well, it's only my opinion but:Because most people interested enough to watch F1 races will know that:1. The cars have a lot less power (fans will know that it is almost in GP2 territory)2. That the cars are a lot slower than they were before (Commentators will remind about it on many occasions, drivers will also comment), top speeds are a lot slower and (if they cut downforce) the Gs in turns are lower. People who like fast cars like numbers.3. Other racing series like those involving LMPs are almost as fast as F1 cars (and F1 back-markers will be slower!)

It doesn't matter if the power to weight is the same or a bit better than some road super car. I'll repeat: people who like fast cars like numbers. Most viewers haven't seen the cars live, their understanding of Formula 1 being the top series is based on it's prestige and their understanding of F1 cars being the fastest race cars is based on numbers.F1 is what it is because of it's prestige, because of the technology and because it's the fastest racing series by a reasonable margin. If the cars become 5 seconds slower, the margin won't be reasonable and they won't be as exciting. And this will hurt F1's prestige. Making feeder series like GP2 slower because their cars are too close to F1 performance will hurt it even more, though only true fans will notice.

Another thing is that your theory that a 5 second difference won't be noticeably live is far from proven. You base it on you own subjective feeling. Which may be a different than what most people would experience. You've compared races from two years, 2004 and 2006 - the problem is that the laptime difference wasn't nearly as big as it will / would supposedly be in 2014. Proportional power loss (not counting KERS, which won't work all the time and probably own't help top speed much) will be a bit bigger actually. If you count KERS, it will be almost half lower though.

For the majority of F1's existence, the power has been considerably less than the 750BHP + 80BHP KERS that we have currently. And pretty much the same can be said for 2014.

Well, for the majority of F1 existance the feeder series were noticeably slower and F1 was the fastest series by a good margin

Have the FIA decided for sure yet whether the Energy Recovery Systems are going to be a push-to-pass button or part of the throttle response?

They were meant to be throttle based, with two times the power and four times the capacity I think. Anyway the rule and technological limits mean that the power won't be available all the time.